101. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92527 by BMMcArdle on November 30, 2007 at 5:34 pm

83.75% of all statistics are made up.

102. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92213 by BMMcArdle on November 30, 2007 at 4:23 am

Ruht,
How old are you?
What level of education have you achieved?
What credentials do you have?

103. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91949 by BMMcArdle on November 29, 2007 at 3:46 pm

When a man's had many partners he's a stud, when a woman's had many partners, she's a slut.
You got a problem with that?
The article is about sexual jealousy, isn't it?
What was Clinton supposed to do, punch out and go home? Get a life. He likes the ladies and they like him. So what if he's a little horny?
It's no skin off of my ass.
Clinton was the best president the U.S. has had since J.F.K, another ladies man.
Where in the article did it say that it was OK to lie to and cheat somebody who trusts you?

104. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90596 by BMMcArdle on November 25, 2007 at 5:34 pm

The link to rebuttal of Davies' article:
http://www.edge.org./discourse/science_faith.html

105. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90290 by BMMcArdle on November 24, 2007 at 2:56 am

Ruht,
How old are you?
In #342 you wrote:

Your answer to that of course, is "There is no God, no Christ, no eternal life, no hell, no soul. We are a lucky, random chance evolution, with no purpose, no destiny, no afterlife, nothing. Survival of the fittest, to hell with love and caring about anyone else, there's no such thing as morals or virtue or sin or righteousness, nothing. We're just nothing but matter."

Are you quoting anyone in this statement, or are these your words?
Does your religion teach you to hate people who you don't even know, to say false things about them?

106. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90067 by BMMcArdle on November 22, 2007 at 4:34 pm

As to the statement that you can't be moral without God, here is my rebuttal, as clear and concise as I can be:

GO FUCK YOURSELF!

Thank you

107. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89216 by BMMcArdle on November 20, 2007 at 3:06 am

Dianelos,
In 88882 you wrote:

If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are.

God comes from within us, and according to idealism, without our consciousness nothing exists, including God.
The idea of a personal God is very dangerous for humanity, as it leads people to think that they are ethically empowered by it to do all kind of nastiness, instead of relying on basic human rights and dignity.
Religion wouldn't be bad if people could all agree on one, but as long as you can make up anything you want for a religion or worldview, that is not going to happen.
A natural explanation is by default far simpler than a supernatural one.

108. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88722 by BMMcArdle on November 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Dianelos,
In post 383 you wrote:

The physical universe and all the things in it we observe around us are simply patterns present in our conscious experience; patterns caused by God's will.

Are you a pattern created by God's will for my conscious experience?

109. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88511 by BMMcArdle on November 17, 2007 at 8:06 am

Does your belief teach you to demean and degrade people who act ethically and morally simply because they believe that's the kind of a world they would like to live in?
That they act that way because of some product of your imagination?
What would Jesus do?

110. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88509 by BMMcArdle on November 17, 2007 at 7:30 am

Dianelos #346

We all agree there is an objective reality out there, in which we all exist, each one of us forming a tiny part. Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty.

A very very good person who perceives/is insensitve to, thinks/ignores, wills/neglects, loves/hates, creates/destroys, enjoys beauty/ugliness.
Which is just like it would be if this person didn't exist.
Isn't it simpler to assume he/she/it isn't reality?

111. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88469 by BMMcArdle on November 16, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Dianelos,
How do you describe your perception of existence, your consciousness? According to your worldview, where everything is an illusion, why do you think you are you?
If everything is an illusion, how do you know where the illusion stops, and you begin?
Isn't it a tad egocentric to think that you are the center of the universe, an illusion created for you in a kind of cosmic game show where the host is asking you ethical questions, and based on your response, the prize is everlasting life in never-never land when the host creates the illusion of your dying?
Do you honestly believe these things, or are you just playing a game of "I can come up with an argument that no one can refute"?
Maybe these questions are part of the game show to you.
Are you in my game show, or am I in yours?

112. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88221 by BMMcArdle on November 15, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Dianelos,
Thank you for your last reply.
In your calculations in post #55061, are you saying that God is only responsible for the conscious experience of the 6 billion people on Earth?
Wouldn't God's side include everything in the universe+humanity's conscious experience+God him/her/itself?
Oops, I forgot, there is nothing but our conscious? experience and God.
Can you explain why you think you think?

113. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88116 by BMMcArdle on November 14, 2007 at 6:20 pm

As superfluous as my foreskin was.

114. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88104 by BMMcArdle on November 14, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Diacanu,
A new hypothesis for the function of the appendix can be found here: http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUKCOL26139620071022

115. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87620 by BMMcArdle on November 12, 2007 at 3:39 pm

What's next, a Rapture feature for Christians that automatically puts on the car's emergency flashers and slows it to a stop when it is suddenly unmanned?
The manufacturers could offer it on existing models and add the letters SC (second coming).
When I was younger I would see bumper stickers that said:
Warning, In Case Of Rapture, This Car Will Be Unmanned!

116. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87546 by BMMcArdle on November 12, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Too much insoluble fiber (apple skin) too quickly is the key, especially if combined with insufficient water intake.

117. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87519 by BMMcArdle on November 12, 2007 at 10:54 am

You can make a number two concrete by eating a bunch of apples.

118. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87293 by BMMcArdle on November 11, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Dianelos,
Thank you for your reply. I have a some other questions, if you don't mind.
How old were you when you were baptised?
What faith were you baptised into?
Do you follow the creeds, and take part in the rituals of that faith?
Thanks, and my apologies for any unfriendly previous posts.
Brian

119. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86727 by BMMcArdle on November 10, 2007 at 3:03 am

Dianelos,
Time permitting, will you answer the three yes-or-no questions I submitted?

120. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86713 by BMMcArdle on November 10, 2007 at 2:41 am

Dear Dianelos,
Were you Baptised?
Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?
Do you believe in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost?

121. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #86454 by BMMcArdle on November 9, 2007 at 9:13 am

Dear Dianelos,
Have you been Baptised?
Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?
Do you believe in the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost?

122. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #86195 by BMMcArdle on November 8, 2007 at 4:25 pm

DG #226

Suppose that a physical system (e.g. the human brain) can produce consciousness, i.e. can produce the capacity of having experiences. Then it's logically possible that it's not our brain that produces our consciousness but some other machinery in which we exist and which simulates the world we observe around us (see "computer simulation argument").

Machinery operated by cats in funny little hats, wearing fancy little vests, on a planet made of grass, with 10 moons and rainbows that sprinkle gumdrops shaped like meow-mix.

123. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #86134 by BMMcArdle on November 8, 2007 at 8:15 am

Thanks for refuting your own argument Tibor.
From the Wiki Naturalistic Fallacy entry:

However, it is important to note that in spite of his rhetorical focus on the 'naturalistic' nature of the fallacy, Moore was not any more satisfied with theories that attempted to define goodness in terms of non-natural properties than he was with naturalistic theories; indeed, the basis of his criticism of "Metaphysical Ethics" in Chapter IV of Principia Ethica is that theories which define 'good' in terms of supernatural or metaphysical properties rest on the very same fallacy as naturalistic theories.

So much for your metaphysical thing or entity.

124. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #86028 by BMMcArdle on November 7, 2007 at 11:12 pm

DG #224

But didn't he just actually change his challenge into: "Name a moral statement an atheist agrees with and which could not be made by the same atheist"?

No, you did. How pathetic. And how intellectually dishonest.
I responded to you HERE

125. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85965 by BMMcArdle on November 7, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Dianelos 215 "That's Not My God"
Is the Bible the basis for your Christian worldview?
Do you not come to this site and posit your brand of wishy-washy feel-goodiness with claims that it "works better" than rational reasoning?
I offered that biblical narrative to counter your assertion that you don't like reality and your idealistic theism is a much more attractive and less dangerous worldview.
You can believe anything under the sun, but don't be suprised if when you try to feed your illusion to rationally reasoning people, they gag on it.

126. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85708 by BMMcArdle on November 6, 2007 at 11:01 pm

DG #204

I claimed that atheism does not allow for a coherent ethical thought, and implied that theism does allow it. But this claim does not imply that every single theist's ethical thought is coherent, or correct, o reasonable, or whatever.

Once upon a time, a little girl from Kansas was wondering which road to take and a scrarecrow (strawman) started talking.
Scarecrow: You could go this way... or you could go that way... of course some people go both ways.
Dorothy: Can't you make up your mind?
Scarecrow: That's the trouble, I can't make up my mind, I haven't got a brain, only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know, but some people without any brains do an awful-lot of talking, don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

127. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85654 by BMMcArdle on November 6, 2007 at 4:56 pm

DG #167

Now, again, an atheist may claim that that's how reality is, and if we don't like it then too bad. But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview.

There, there, now don't you worry. Drink your warm milk and I'll tuck you in and tell you a story....
There is an indescribably powerful and intelligent being called God who is in existence prior to the dawn of time. For whatever reason, he decides to create the universe and pays particular attention to planet Earth. Having created the universe, Earth and all the species on it, he decides to focus all his attention on a collection of tribal groupings in the Middle East, in particular the Israelites who are his 'chosen people' and who he obsesses over, while apparently ignoring the rest of the world's population. He lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws, then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way. Fast forward to the Middle East under Roman occupation and God decides it's time to put in an appearance. By mystical means he comes to earth in human form, being born of a virgin. He becomes incarnate as a Jewish male and wanders around what is today Israel-Palestine, imparting pithy social commentary (but never giving any systematic explanation of how such ideas might be made politically useful), engaging in faith healing (removing 'demons' from people), magic tricks (such as walking on water and raising a dead man), and ranting on and on about sin, eternal punishment for the majority of the world's population, and the impending end of the world. He gets himself crucified, in order that he can sacrifice himself to himself for our good. A few days later he walks out of his tomb and wanders round with some of his followers (noticeably not bothering to make himself known to anyone but those who already believed in him), before 'ascending' into 'Heaven', to wait for the time when he will return to raise every human who has ever lived in bodily form for judgement, then cast most of us into a pit of fire and take a select few into his 'kingdom' for eternity where they will live happily ever after. (Edmund Standing)

128. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #84645 by BMMcArdle on November 3, 2007 at 3:38 am

You can't be intelligent without first being ignorant.

129. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #84232 by BMMcArdle on November 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm

I would much rather live in a world where people acted morally and ethically simply because they knew in their hearts that it was the right thing to do, not because they thought Santa Claus was watching them.
It demeans every moral or ethical action taken for its sake, to say that the only reason to do so was to please a deity.
I feel sorry for people who don't have any faith in the decency of their fellow human beings, and have to dehumanize them with their disgusting opinion of supernatural origins for morality and ethics.

130. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #83985 by BMMcArdle on November 1, 2007 at 12:47 am

"It's really quite amazing," one may say, or: "You know, I was just reading it the other day; it's as good as ever."

I look forward to using this, with the right inflection, of course. Ah, the nuances of language.

131. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83732 by BMMcArdle on October 31, 2007 at 4:20 am

DG #166

Believe what you wish if that makes you feel better, and defend your beliefs any way you like.

And with that, hundreds of long-winded and vacuous posts disappeared. POOF!

132. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83711 by BMMcArdle on October 31, 2007 at 2:55 am

It is disgusting and demeaning to anyone who has ever acted morally or ethically simply because the knew that it was the right thing to do, to listen to self-righteous talk about "ethical empowerment" being derived by belief in the unknowable.
Regain control of your imagination-kidnapped conscience.

133. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83279 by BMMcArdle on October 29, 2007 at 1:42 pm

I call my worldview "Wishful Thinkism", and believe only that which works best to support it.
Nothing else would make sense to me.

134. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83181 by BMMcArdle on October 29, 2007 at 7:55 am

Irrelevent question.
Is it possible that we remember or have it ingrained in ourselves that we were all once completely helpless and utterly hopeless without our mothers or other females whose care and nurturing as infants made for our continued existence?
The nature of childhood teaches us to respect our elders, since we are entirely dependent upon them for our survival as we mature.
The older we get, the more we realize just how much we owe the people who provided for us as we grew.
Then again, maybe she's got a granddaughter/son she can hook you up with!

135. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82985 by BMMcArdle on October 28, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Santa Claus is watching you!

136. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82953 by BMMcArdle on October 28, 2007 at 10:47 am

I choose to believe things that work best to support my delusion.
It makes no sense to me to believe things that do not support my delusion.

137. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82468 by BMMcArdle on October 26, 2007 at 11:52 am

A worldview that supports my delusion works better.

138. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81817 by BMMcArdle on October 25, 2007 at 8:30 am

Causal:
Everything must have a cause. It is impossible to continue backwards to infinity with causes, therefore there must have been a first cause which was not conditioned by any other cause. That cause must be God.
Objections: If you allow one thing to exist without cause, you contradict your own premise. And if you do, there is no reason why the universe should not be the one thing that exists or originates without cause.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GODEXIST.html

139. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #81810 by BMMcArdle on October 25, 2007 at 8:23 am

Not accepting evolution is like saying the world's foremost geologists, paleontologists, and biologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops. (author unknown)

140. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #81809 by BMMcArdle on October 25, 2007 at 8:18 am

Atheism is as much a religion as yes is no, black is white, good is bad, left is right, etcetera.

141. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81178 by BMMcArdle on October 24, 2007 at 10:55 am

It makes more sense to support your delusions with delusion, not rationality and reason.

142. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80641 by BMMcArdle on October 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Riley, reading your posts is like watching a child play army with toy soldiers of his own making, except in this case they are all straw men.

143. Atheists aren't a bad lot

Comment #80522 by BMMcArdle on October 22, 2007 at 3:53 am

See comments:
Here

144. Atheists aren't a bad lot

Comment #80508 by BMMcArdle on October 22, 2007 at 3:00 am

This article is setting up the straw man that "Believers do not not act less ethically than non-believers can not not haven't done".

145. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80342 by BMMcArdle on October 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

Riley #143:

This whole thread I think serves as a lesson in pack-minded profiling and the knee jerk emotional reaction people instinctively feel when their pack leader (e.g. Hitchens) gets attacked.

Now that's a straw man!

Riley #67

Why does the Hitchens Challenge bother me as much as it does? It's because I hate hypocrisy. Not only does the Hitchens Challenge misrepresent the position of others, it's the exact type of intellectual dishonesty for which we rightly condemn theists.

Real nice.

146. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80205 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Riley, the only strawman is the one you seem hell-bent on crafting.
As many others have responded, Hitchens is merely addressing the fact that you don't need to be a believer to act morally or ethically.

147. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80183 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Riley #70:

The Hitchens Straw Man:
"believers make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

Riley #105

Don't try to re-interpret what Hithcens really means based on what you think his intent was or claim that the larger context changes the meaning of his actual words.

Priceless.

148. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80140 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 6:59 am

Riley 70:

The Hitchens Straw Man:
"believers make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

This quote came from the same place a huge bug currently occupies.

149. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80109 by BMMcArdle on October 20, 2007 at 2:44 am

Riley 67:

Why does the Hitchens Challenge bothers me as much as it does? It's because I hate hypocrisy. Not only does the Hitchens Challenge misrepresent the position of others, it's the exact type of intellectual dishonesty for which we rightly condemn theists.

It's hypocritical to be right?

Clear as mud.

150. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79533 by BMMcArdle on October 17, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Arguments against idealism:

That nothing can be thought of without its being thought of, to the conclusion that nothing can exist without its being thought of, is a tautology.

1) You cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind, without having them in mind.

2) Therefore, you cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind.

1) Is a tautology; therefore the premise of this argument is trivially true.

2) Is not a trivially true conclusion. The logic flowing from 1) to 2) is valid (as this premise cannot lead to a false conclusion), but unsound because tautological premises can bring only tautological conclusions.

(David Stove)